I'm not a big Star Trek fan, but I know some of the material. So here we go...

Suppose the Star Wars universe and the Star Trek universe was somehow intertwinded, and an ALL OUT WAR broke out between The Empire and The Federation. Now consider this, the The Federation can not call upon any other race for help, and The Empire can not call or "use" the rebels or smugglers in this war.

Who would win? If you think the Empire would win, state your facts as to WHY they would win. If you think the Federation would win, state your facts as to WHY.

I think the Empire would win, even with the blind stupidity of so many of the officers. Why, you ask? Star Destroyers. Let's see, there's Imperial-Class, Victory-Class, and Super-Class Star Destroyers, right? They all have lots of armor, heavy shields, and enough firepower to reduce a Federation ship to atoms. The weapons on a SD just seem more practical than whatever the Federation would have. The Empire also has TIE fighters. (Pilot lingo) They've got eyeballs (standard) and squints (Interceptors). They may not have shields, but they're fast and they usually come in large numbers. I guess another reason why I think the Empire would win is that I'm a bigger Star Wars fan than I am a Star Trek fan.

------------------
"Well, you were right about one thing, Master. The negotiations were short."
- Obi-Wan Kenobi

I'm sure this list could be made more exhaustive, but this seems good enough for the momment. You know, the first impulse seems to be to assume that since the Empire has more ships and bigger capital ships, that it would easily win in a fight with the Federation. However, if you think about it, it seems clear that the Federation, overall, has far superior technology to the Empire.

The advantage of the waves of TIEs becomes insignificant once you realize how quickly a fleet of Federation starships could blow them out of the sky with their computerized targeting and control systems. And even if some TIEs did get off shots, they'd have a nearly impossible time even making a dent in the Federation's shields. Imagine a bunch of shuttles trying to take on the Enterprise. Picard would laugh.

And the Federation starships would run circles around the Star Destroyers, easily knocking out their shield generators and most likely disabling their engines or worse just vaporizing the bridge with a few well placed quantum torpedoes.

Plus, the Federation's officers are the cream of the crop, volunteers that have to pass many trials and much training to get a coveted post on a Federation Starship. Most of the Imperial crewers are conscripts, save the officers.

To me, even though I love both Star Wars and Star Trek (okay, I like Star Wars more), I still think the Federation has far more going for it. Better technology, better crews, better ships. And these factors far outweigh the Federation's main disadvantage in its smaller number of ships.

I like Star Wars slightly better than Star Trek (depending on my mood), but the Federation does have better technology than anything the Empire has fielded.

Oh, and there's a new video game coming out for Playstation (DAMN!!) that gives Starfleet snubfighters (they're called Valkyrie-class fighters, and they're still experimental, but I think they have warp drives).

------------------
"The Beasts know much that we do not." -Ancient Jedi proverb

...Suppose the Star Wars universe and the Star Trek universe was somehow intertwinded, and an ALL OUT WAR broke out between The Empire and The Federation...

Which says nothing about letting the Empire advance technologically for thousands of year and then having them battle each other. In your statement, the implication was that war broke out when the Empire was at its peak of power during the classic trilogy.

Second, the Empire doesn't even exist a long time from now in a galaxy far, far away. It's replaced by the New Republic, remember?

Thirdly, how the hell are we supposed to know what technology the Empire would have after thousands of years?

The only valid comparison is the Empire at its peak of power -vs- the Federation at its peak of power. Speculating on what could be in thousands of years it just pointless since we have absolutley evidence, and since any remnants of the Empire that did survive up until the Federation time period would still be far weaker than the classic Empire was at its height of power.

You claim that the Fedaration shields could stand up to TIE lasers, yet it cannot be proven. For all we know, the Star Wars lasers could be hundreds of times more powerful than Star Trek phasers. Or the Star Wars shields could be different, allowing the ST transporters to beam right through and onto the bridge of any ship.

The point is: There's no real way to accuratly compare the Empire to the Fedaration, because they exist on totally different scales.

I wonder how well Dr. Who would stand up against a Force user? He's been up against some tough types before, but I think that would certainly be a challenge. He would have his work cut out for him taking down something as huge as the Empire though. I mean no army..

Are we counting the EU, too? Because then the Empire also has TIE Defenders (hyperspace and shields), The Ssi-Ruuvi battle ships that the Emporer bargained for, Grand Admiral Thrawn (brilliant stratagies), the Noghri, and so on and so on.

And let us not forget the Death Stars (which could destroy the Earth in a matter of seconds).

And the force, which the Emporer and Darth Vader could use to crush Fedaration ships (which is possible; remember what Dorsk 81 did in Dark Saber (unless we aren't counting EU, but I'm sure it's still possible)).

Plus, the Empire has one of the best advantages possible: Ion Cannons. Ion Cannons blast through shields in a single hit, and disable the ship that they are targeting.

...For all we know, the Star Wars lasers could be hundreds of times more powerful than Star Trek phasers...

Well, as a quick smaller-scale comparison, we know that a Federation hand-phaser and completely vaporize a person. Remember those classic Star Trek episodes, and even Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

I've yet to see evidence that a Star Wars blaster can vaporize an entire Human body.

Furthermore, almost all Star Wars blasters (save the Death Star Super Laser), are only capable for short bursts, not continuous fire such as the Federation phasers. This is a huge advantage as well.

As to the Death Star issue, remember, there were only two Death Stars, and both were destroyed. I'd say that the total Empire was stronger during the period of Return of the Jedi, which had an incomplete Death Star, but there was a completed one available during A New Hope. You have to pick one point in time to pit the Empire against the Federation. If you pick the New Hope era, then while you'd get a Death Star, you'd also forgo TIE Intercepters, Bombers, and Super Star Destroyers. Furthermore, even with a Death Star, I'd suspect that the Federation would just send some starships in close and destroy the super laser nodes on the eyeball of the death star. I always wondered why they never attempted that in the movie.

Furthermore, like I said, a starship's phasers can roast a planet just as effectively as a death star, without all the mess. So if we're going to go down the path of planet-killing, the Federation has far more Death Stars than the Empire. Food for thought.

But true, there is no way to positively compare the two. There are only educated guesses.

And like I said, I like Star Wars much more than Star Trek, but that Federation has some really advanced technology.

P.S. I really don't care who would win. But after comparing the advantages and disadvantages, it seems obvious to me who would. If you disagree with me, then add to my list of advantages and disadvantages to support your case.

I inspected his details on weapon comparisons. While he seemed to have actual numbers for the power output of Federation weaopns, he came up with his own numbers for the output of turbolasers, using lots of statements like, "...if...then...", and such. I don't put much credibility in his statements.

I always look at the messenger, and if the messenger is biased, then that's a warning flag. After further investigation, sure enough he appears to have fudged the information in his favor, whether consciously or not. That's my opinion though, and you may have a different one, which is perfectly valid, and which I have absoutely no interest in debating.

well, actually, there is a hand blaster in star wars that can vaporize entire vehicles, not just people. the disruptor pistol. an no, i didn't just get that from shadows of the empire, it's in the complete guide to weapons and technology. and if u wanna get into beaming antimatter bombs onto a star destroyer, i have two words, THE FORCE. Vader could choke the entire crew of a ship with minimal effort, and forget about the emperor, darth maul, carnor jax, or joruss cboath. And no matter how tough or fast federation capital ships may be, 1) the Eclipse would destroy them utterly, and 2) they don't have fighters, and the Empire has Defenders, Interceptors, A-9 Vigliance fighters, Bombers, howlrunnners, skipray blastboats, and gun boats, and zero g stormtroopers. Also, we DO have ion cannons. Also, what does the federation have to counter stuff like dark troopers? or even Imperial Royal Guards, who fight almost as well as jedi? nothing. And if the federatioin ran away, not only does the empire have faster hyperdrives, but we also have interdictor cruisers to keep them from running in the first place. Also, the Empire has such a huge fleet, the entire Federation fleet would not be able to take the imperial fleet from the Death Star battle at the end of Return of the Jedi. There were over 50 star destroyers, PLUS, the Super Star Destroyer Executor. Theres too many targets to shoot at, so while the federation gunners are using there computerized sights, theyre getting pummeled by over 100 capital ships (probably), and considering the starfighter capacity of star destroyers, over thousands of fighters. no matter how tough there shields are, there is no way they can take that sort of punishment. oh, and by the way, two words, Sun Crusher.

About that statement that the empire has Interdictors to stop them from running. Well the Federation goes into WARPspace which is similar to Hyperspace, yet different. And Interdictors only stop them from going to HYPERspace. So I guess they could run and run away. But I see one thing that could very easily make them stop running and probably make them surrended: Put the death star near earth and threaten to blow it up. And what would the federation do? Send in snubfighters. Oh wait they don't have any! (That was intentional...)
Dang i feel sorry. Federation might have high technology but the Empire has even more better stuff too!

Okay ItalianSith007 and JediIgor, you're teenagers. Finish college and then we'll talk - once you actually have an education.

P.S. Guys, Federation starships don't go into warp space. They utilize warp engines, which warps the fabric of space-time and propels the ship at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds. In Star Wars, on the other hand, the ships use Hyperdrive engines. An interdictor prevents Hypdrive-capable ships from traveling through hyperspace by projecting a huge gravity well, thereby simulating a large massed body, and finally triggering the target ship's hypdrive fail-safe - the fail safe is programmed to prevent hyperspace travel when near large bodies in order to prevent the ship from flying through a planet or a star. Since Federation ships' warp drives don't operate on this principle, interdictor cruisers would be ineffective. Do your homework kids.

P.S.S. You're obviously Star Wars fanatics, and hey so am I; I like Star Wars much better than Star Trek. The difference between us is that you actually care whether the Empire would beat the Federation, while I do not. That's why my observations are objective and yours are merely fanatical rantings.

Conor, what am I going to do with you? Walking the plank comes to mind

First of all, comparing which fictional space empire would beat the other, is preposterously different than pondering whether or not Ghandi should have been ignored. These two topics shouldn't even be in the same paragraph.

My assertion is still valid: If one has a vested interest in the outcome of an event, contest, or opinion then one's objectivity comes into question and should usually be disqualified as unobjective.

Example 1:

If an NFL referee is the owner of one of the football teams in a game he is officiating, then that referee would be biased, or at the very least have the impression of bias, hence that referee should be disqualified from officiating that game, or any NFL games that would directly or indirectly affect his team in some way. Furthermore, this NFL team owner should probably be prevented from officiating any NFL games.

Example 2:

If a Christian priest writes a paper on what the best religion in the world is, then you can pretty much discount his paper as totally biased. Since he has a vested interest in what the best religion in the world is, it would seem obvious that he would conclude that Christianity is the best religion in the world. For this reason, this priest's conclusions would be unobjective and of little value in fairly comparing the world's religinos.

Example 3:

If a judge is presiding over a case where the defendant is accused of murderering the judge's only son, then the judge will most likely feel an urge to be biased against the accused. The judge will have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. For this reason, judges are required to recuse themselves from such cases to remove the impression of bias and impropriety.

Now that I've provided these common-sense examples, I shall walk away from this fledgling debate. Good luck Conor, and nice try in attempting to bait me into an infinite array of frustrating arguments

I'm sure your frustrated from this stuff, but I've long since given up on getting any sort of logical discussion on anything out of you, and I'm serious. As soon as someone disagrees with you you start throwing accusations around about 'forcing your beliefs on me' and 'you shouldn't tell me what is right and wrong' and other nonsense.

As far as reality goes, it is impossible for anyone on earth to be completely unbiased on any matter, but it is asinine and foolish to say it is impossible to discuss the matter objectively. Some people can't, but most people can.

P.S. For your information, a priest becomes a priest because he found christianity to be the true religion, he didn't declare it to be true because he was a priest.

You can defend that idiotic idea that an advocate of an issue can't be objective all you want, but it is still idiocy.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

*Darth Vader and the wicked Palpatine sat in the observation tower of the Executor, watching the Federation fleet approach with somehow twisted delight.

Suddenly, a huge swirling maw opened in the vacuum of space ahead of the massive starfleet, pulling them in!

Admiral Piett stood aghast next to the two Sith as they sat grinning in Dark Side concentration. The Force Storm they had created was huge, and Piett felt strangely small compared to the power they must have possessed.

Inside the command ship of the doomed fleet, The Federation commander feverishly barked his commands. "To your posts! Full Warp speed to the Sullust system, and hurry!!"

It was too late. Soon the once-impressive starships were sucked into the space-going maelstrom, destroying them and hurling their remains into the Dark Side Abyss.

Vader and the Emperor opened their eyes and turned to Piett.

Vader took a deep, heavy breath. "Tell Commander Hophfel to move the Executor away from the fleet and return to Coruscant.

"Y-Yes, my lord," Admiral Piett stammered.*

I hope this settles this issue. The Sith are part of the Empire, therefore, they can be just as legal in this discussion as the phasers that vaporize people.

I thought this was an interesting question, and I was fascinated by Vagabond's careful analysis of the relative strengths of the Empire and the Federation--very well thought out.

I'm probably a bigger Trekfan than SWfan. I used to watch ST:TOS religiously in my misspent youth, and one of the great privileges of my life was becoming personally acquainted with one of the lesser stars of the show (guess which one--see pic below for a hint).

But even though I'm a big fan of Trek, especially the original series and movies, I've gotta believe that the Empire, with its Deathstars and planetkilling capability, would be more than a match for the Federation.

...My comments were not meant to insult you, but merely to state how I feel about every 'discussion' we have attempted on these forums...

No offense taken, for I feel the same way my friend We're just going to have to accept that you and I are prone to disagree on a great many things.

I find it interesting though, that despite the three examples I provided illustrating people in positions where their judgements should be easily recognizable as unobjective, you seem as though you'd have no problems with accepting their judgements as fair.

If so, then let me pose you some hypothetical (know that I'm no longer attempting to debate, just attempting to get clarification on your position). Let's say you own one of the teams in the super bowl, and the referee on the field owns the other team in the super bowl. Now, as with every game, there are some calls by the referee that are questionable. Are you saying that you'd accept that any bad calls this (referee/opposing owner) made, which negatively affected your team, were made in good faith? You wouldn't be suspiscious of his motives at all?

What if you were the defendant in a murder trial, where you were accused of murdering the judge's son? Would you be comfortable with the victim's parent presiding over your trial?

If so, then you have a lot more faith in Humanity than I do. I don't share this belief, but I sure do find it interesting.

See, isn't it nice to be left with your beliefs without being reprimanded and lectured

wizzywig,

About the Star Wars -vs- Star Trek thing, glad you liked my analysis.

I was wondering though, don't you think that the laser nodes on the Death Star's main gun would be easy to disable?

Furthermore, isn't the Death Star a fairly impractical tactical weapon? If it destroys the entire planet, the the planet, its resources, and its people are of absolutely not value to the Empire.

Lastly, what of the argument that (1) Federation vessels can just as effectively vaporize all life on a planet with either phaser bombardment, or (2) if really desperate could bombard planets with the genesis torpedo, which would kill all life on the planet.

In any event, should this hypothetical war ever take place, I don't think it would be a cakewalk for either side.

I readily admit that some people can't be objective, but I propose that is a trait of their own and not a characteristic of the situation.

I'm absolutely certain there are any number of people who could ref a game of a team they owned, while being perfectly impartial.

I mainly talk about moral beliefs though. I think it is kind of silly to say that just because someone holds to a position they can't be objective in a discussion about it. It is a disservice. Especially since everyone on earth holds down a position on morality of some sort, you can't very well accuse people of being biased simply because they disagree with you, namely because you have a belief on the matter yourself.

As for those two guys above your post, I didn't even read what they said (can't stand putting long statements in one paragraph). You were probably right about the objectivity for all I know. What got me is the idea that they couldn't be objective comparing the two simply because they like one side better.

For myself, the situation is easily analysed and dismissed, on one condition. Is this Star Trek vs. Star Wars or Federation vs. Empire? If it is the former, Q would win in a thought, being the ace up any Trek fan's sleeve (and SW has no counterpart). If it is the latter, Q would probably join up with the Empire just for fun.

------------------
"Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
-St. Francis of Assisi

And my last words on objectivity are this: I myself am very competative, and if I were the referee/owner on the field, hard as I might try to be objective, I feel confident that whether out of my competative nature or subconsciously, I would not be completely impartial.

I think the key though is that I realize, up front, that I'd have a very difficult time at being objective. Many people either aren't able to see this or admit it about themselves. However, I can accept the possibility that there are those rare individuals who may be able to be totally objective and fair, even when the subject is something that they have a close personal interest in. But my thought is that this is by far the exception rather than the rule.

This is why I felt relatively confident in dismissing the comments of the people you referenced above. Those peoples' comments didn't demonstrate any hint of objectivity, and in fact were blatantly biased. Hope that clears things up.

Vagabond... What can i saay?
So i made one little mistake
still my point is correct
the interdictor wont help because it only stops ships with hyperdrive engines and not with warp engines... So thanks for pointing that out.